Vegetarian Discussion: Campbell's Soups.........

Campbell's Soups.........
Posts: 27

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page:  Previous  1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2012-08-23 09:37:38 EST
On Aug 23, 2:44 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:00 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> > > > Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
> > > > animals, lied:
>
> > > > >> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
> > > > >> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100.  The
> > > > >> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
> > > > >> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer.  What
> > > > >> is going to happen to the supply of cattle?  It is going to increase,
> > > > >> because at the old rate of supply
>
> > > > >      What happens to all the extra beef
>
> > > > It's sold and eaten.
>
> > > So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
> > > consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>
> > > Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>
> > Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
> > because the market price goes down.
>
> You are missing the whole point of Goo's stupid contention that there
> are herds of EXTRA livestock being raised.
>
> EXTRA, meaning over and above the demand for HUMAN consumption. i.e.
> pet food livestock.......although there is some confusion as to what
> happens to the choice cuts from these animals.

The claim is that more livestock will be produced if the demand for
pet food goes up.

You agree this will happen at some point? If the demand for pet food
went up by a factor of 100, for example?

You talk about "the demand for human consumption" as if it's a
constant. It's a function of price. If more beef is produced, then the
sellers will compete with one another and the price will go down, so
that more beef will be bought than would otherwise be the case.

Mr.Smartypants
2012-08-23 09:54:00 EST
On Aug 23, 7:37 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:44 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 2:00 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> > > > > Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
> > > > > animals, lied:
>
> > > > > >> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
> > > > > >> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100.  The
> > > > > >> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
> > > > > >> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer.  What
> > > > > >> is going to happen to the supply of cattle?  It is going to increase,
> > > > > >> because at the old rate of supply
>
> > > > > >      What happens to all the extra beef
>
> > > > > It's sold and eaten.
>
> > > > So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
> > > > consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>
> > > > Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>
> > > Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
> > > because the market price goes down.
>
> > You are missing the whole point of Goo's stupid contention that there
> > are herds of EXTRA livestock being raised.
>
> > EXTRA, meaning over and above the demand for HUMAN consumption. i.e.
> > pet food livestock.......although there is some confusion as to what
> > happens to the choice cuts from these animals.
>
> The claim is that more livestock will be produced if the demand for
> pet food goes up.
>
> You agree this will happen at some point? If the demand for pet food
> went up by a factor of 100, for example?
>
> You talk about "the demand for human consumption" as if it's a
> constant. It's a function of price. If more beef is produced, then the
> sellers will compete with one another and the price will go down, so
> that more beef will be bought than would otherwise be the case.


None of this has anything to do with Goo's original premise that EXTRA
livestock are being produced simply to become pet food. After
listening to his "sales pitch", Dave and I began to question what
happens to the choice cuts from all these EXTRA animals. We still
haven't received a satisfactory answer. Simply saying "they get sold
and eaten" doesn't answer the question.

George Plimpton
2012-08-23 11:19:14 EST
On 8/23/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
>>> animals, lied:
>>
>>>>> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
>>>>> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100. The
>>>>> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
>>>>> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer. What
>>>>> is going to happen to the supply of cattle? It is going to increase,
>>>>> because at the old rate of supply
>>
>>>> What happens to all the extra beef
>>
>>> It's sold and eaten.
>>
>> So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
>> consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>>
>> Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>
> Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
> because the market price goes down.

That's very close to correct. Economists distinguish between movement
along a demand curve, and a movement or shift of the curve itself.
Economists would say that there is an increase in the /quantity
demanded/ due to the price reduction, rather than an increase in demand;
"increase in demand" generally refers to a shift in the demand curve.

In a case like this, there has been a shift in the total demand curve
for cattle, due to the addition of the new demand for leather to the
existing demand for beef. Because more cattle are produced, there is
more beef, and the only way to sell it - given the existing demand
function for beef - is for the price of beef to drop, which it will. At
the new lower price, consumers will buy more beef - and that includes
pet food manufacturers.


Mr.Smartypants
2012-08-23 14:43:18 EST
On Aug 23, 9:19 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> >>> Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
> >>> animals, lied:
>
> >>>>> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
> >>>>> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100.  The
> >>>>> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
> >>>>> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer.  What
> >>>>> is going to happen to the supply of cattle?  It is going to increase,
> >>>>> because at the old rate of supply
>
> >>>>       What happens to all the extra beef
>
> >>> It's sold and eaten.
>
> >> So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
> >> consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>
> >> Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>
> > Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
> > because the market price goes down.
>
> That's very close to correct.  Economists distinguish between movement
> along a demand curve, and a movement or shift of the curve itself.
> Economists would say that there is an increase in the /quantity
> demanded/ due to the price reduction, rather than an increase in demand;
> "increase in demand" generally refers to a shift in the demand curve.
>
> In a case like this, there has been a shift in the total demand curve
> for cattle, due to the addition of the new demand for leather to the
> existing demand for beef.  Because more cattle are produced, there is
> more beef, and the only way to sell it - given the existing demand
> function for beef - is for the price of beef to drop, which it will.  At
> the new lower price, consumers will buy more beef - and that includes
> pet food manufacturers.


So now that you've brought leather into the equation, you'd better add
Gummi Bears too, Goober.

Dutch
2012-08-23 14:56:23 EST
Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:00 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
>>>> animals, lied:
>>
>>>>>> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
>>>>>> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100. The
>>>>>> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
>>>>>> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer. What
>>>>>> is going to happen to the supply of cattle? It is going to increase,
>>>>>> because at the old rate of supply
>>
>>>>> What happens to all the extra beef
>>
>>>> It's sold and eaten.
>>
>>> So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
>>> consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>>
>>> Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>>
>> Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
>> because the market price goes down.
>
>
> You are missing the whole point of Goo's stupid contention that there
> are herds of EXTRA livestock being raised.

When raising livestock becomes more profitable due to such factors as
demand for by-products, more ("extra") will be raised.

> EXTRA, meaning over and above the demand for HUMAN consumption. i.e.
> pet food livestock.......although there is some confusion as to what
> happens to the choice cuts from these animals.
>

The demand for human consumption of meat is flexible. It varies
primarily depending on price.



Mr.Smartypants
2012-08-24 00:50:48 EST
On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 2:00 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> >>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
> >>>> animals, lied:
>
> >>>>>> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
> >>>>>> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100.  The
> >>>>>> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
> >>>>>> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer.  What
> >>>>>> is going to happen to the supply of cattle?  It is going to increase,
> >>>>>> because at the old rate of supply
>
> >>>>>       What happens to all the extra beef
>
> >>>> It's sold and eaten.
>
> >>> So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
> >>> consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>
> >>> Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>
> >> Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
> >> because the market price goes down.
>
> > You are missing the whole point of Goo's stupid contention that there
> > are herds of EXTRA livestock being raised.
>
> When raising livestock becomes more profitable due to such factors as
> demand for by-products, more ("extra") will be raised.
>
> > EXTRA, meaning over and above the demand for HUMAN consumption. i.e.
> > pet food livestock.......although there is some confusion as to what
> > happens to the choice cuts from these animals.
>
> The demand for human consumption of meat is flexible. It varies
> primarily depending on price.


Goo's original premise was that a specific animal had been raised for
TWELVE years for no other purpose in it's life than to be pet food. He
then expanded that ridiculous idea to unspecified numbers of EXTRA
livestock being raised to meet pet food demand.

Dutch
2012-08-24 14:18:35 EST
Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>> On Aug 23, 2:00 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
>>>>>> animals, lied:
>>
>>>>>>>> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
>>>>>>>> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100. The
>>>>>>>> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
>>>>>>>> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer. What
>>>>>>>> is going to happen to the supply of cattle? It is going to increase,
>>>>>>>> because at the old rate of supply
>>
>>>>>>> What happens to all the extra beef
>>
>>>>>> It's sold and eaten.
>>
>>>>> So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
>>>>> consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>>
>>>>> Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>>
>>>> Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
>>>> because the market price goes down.
>>
>>> You are missing the whole point of Goo's stupid contention that there
>>> are herds of EXTRA livestock being raised.
>>
>> When raising livestock becomes more profitable due to such factors as
>> demand for by-products, more ("extra") will be raised.
>>
>>> EXTRA, meaning over and above the demand for HUMAN consumption. i.e.
>>> pet food livestock.......although there is some confusion as to what
>>> happens to the choice cuts from these animals.
>>
>> The demand for human consumption of meat is flexible. It varies
>> primarily depending on price.
>
>
> Goo's original premise was that a specific animal had been raised for
> TWELVE years for no other purpose in it's life than to be pet food. He
> then expanded that ridiculous idea to unspecified numbers of EXTRA
> livestock being raised to meet pet food demand.
>

Do you have a link for that?



Mr.Smartypants
2012-08-24 20:11:20 EST
On Aug 24, 12:18 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>> On Aug 23, 2:00 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
> >>>>>> animals, lied:
>
> >>>>>>>> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
> >>>>>>>> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100.  The
> >>>>>>>> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
> >>>>>>>> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer.  What
> >>>>>>>> is going to happen to the supply of cattle?  It is going to increase,
> >>>>>>>> because at the old rate of supply
>
> >>>>>>>        What happens to all the extra beef
>
> >>>>>> It's sold and eaten.
>
> >>>>> So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
> >>>>> consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>
> >>>>> Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>
> >>>> Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
> >>>> because the market price goes down.
>
> >>> You are missing the whole point of Goo's stupid contention that there
> >>> are herds of EXTRA livestock being raised.
>
> >> When raising livestock becomes more profitable due to such factors as
> >> demand for by-products, more ("extra") will be raised.
>
> >>> EXTRA, meaning over and above the demand for HUMAN consumption. i.e.
> >>> pet food livestock.......although there is some confusion as to what
> >>> happens to the choice cuts from these animals.
>
> >> The demand for human consumption of meat is flexible. It varies
> >> primarily depending on price.
>
> > Goo's original premise was that a specific animal had been raised for
> > TWELVE years for no other purpose in it's life than to be pet food. He
> > then expanded that ridiculous idea to unspecified numbers of EXTRA
> > livestock being raised to meet pet food demand.
>
> Do you have a link for that?


yeh,...the Google archives.

Rupert
2012-08-25 00:07:25 EST
On Aug 24, 8:18 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>> On Aug 23, 2:00 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
> >>>>>> animals, lied:
>
> >>>>>>>> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
> >>>>>>>> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100.  The
> >>>>>>>> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
> >>>>>>>> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer.  What
> >>>>>>>> is going to happen to the supply of cattle?  It is going to increase,
> >>>>>>>> because at the old rate of supply
>
> >>>>>>>        What happens to all the extra beef
>
> >>>>>> It's sold and eaten.
>
> >>>>> So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
> >>>>> consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>
> >>>>> Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>
> >>>> Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
> >>>> because the market price goes down.
>
> >>> You are missing the whole point of Goo's stupid contention that there
> >>> are herds of EXTRA livestock being raised.
>
> >> When raising livestock becomes more profitable due to such factors as
> >> demand for by-products, more ("extra") will be raised.
>
> >>> EXTRA, meaning over and above the demand for HUMAN consumption. i.e.
> >>> pet food livestock.......although there is some confusion as to what
> >>> happens to the choice cuts from these animals.
>
> >> The demand for human consumption of meat is flexible. It varies
> >> primarily depending on price.
>
> > Goo's original premise was that a specific animal had been raised for
> > TWELVE years for no other purpose in it's life than to be pet food. He
> > then expanded that ridiculous idea to unspecified numbers of EXTRA
> > livestock being raised to meet pet food demand.
>
> Do you have a link for that?

I can't find the original post but the quotation is

Message-ID: <cJ9Kf.1332$5M6.879@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Ron asked Goo:

>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?

Goo replied:

Yes.

Rupert
2012-08-25 00:27:32 EST
On Aug 24, 8:18 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>> On Aug 23, 2:00 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 23, 7:50 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Aug 22, 8:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, who has no consideration for the lives of
> >>>>>> animals, lied:
>
> >>>>>>>> Now suppose that a use for leather is discovered or invented, and the
> >>>>>>>> market price for the leather from one head of cattle is $100.  The
> >>>>>>>> market price for a head of cattle is now $200 - $100 paid by a beef
> >>>>>>>> processor, and another $100 paid by a leather goods manufacturer.  What
> >>>>>>>> is going to happen to the supply of cattle?  It is going to increase,
> >>>>>>>> because at the old rate of supply
>
> >>>>>>>        What happens to all the extra beef
>
> >>>>>> It's sold and eaten.
>
> >>>>> So the EXTRA beef from EXTRA livestock over and above human
> >>>>> consumption demand is sold and eaten.
>
> >>>>> Sold to whom and eaten by whom, Goobs?
>
> >>>> Not over and above human consumption demand. The demand goes up
> >>>> because the market price goes down.
>
> >>> You are missing the whole point of Goo's stupid contention that there
> >>> are herds of EXTRA livestock being raised.
>
> >> When raising livestock becomes more profitable due to such factors as
> >> demand for by-products, more ("extra") will be raised.
>
> >>> EXTRA, meaning over and above the demand for HUMAN consumption. i.e.
> >>> pet food livestock.......although there is some confusion as to what
> >>> happens to the choice cuts from these animals.
>
> >> The demand for human consumption of meat is flexible. It varies
> >> primarily depending on price.
>
> > Goo's original premise was that a specific animal had been raised for
> > TWELVE years for no other purpose in it's life than to be pet food. He
> > then expanded that ridiculous idea to unspecified numbers of EXTRA
> > livestock being raised to meet pet food demand.
>
> Do you have a link for that?

Here's the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/browse_frm/thread/c240a7a4e5f3f141/a9b01ec19cf4f1bd?lnk=gst&q=She+was+likely+a+range+cow+that+was+beyond+her+calf+bearing+years+#a9b01ec19cf4f1bd
Page:  Previous  1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron